Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

Theil didn't just hurt a bully. He took it a step further. For one, he financed someone else's lawsuit, because his own was unwinnable (they did in fact print the truth, that he is gay). More importantly, he hurt free speech through the chilling effect of his suit.

What he basically did was say, "don't ever print anything negative about a billionaire because they can take down your entire business". So now if a billionaire really does do something newsworthy and negative, places like the New York Times might think twice about publishing that story, for fear of the cost of defending a billionaire's lawsuit.

That's why people dislike him (other than his Trump support, although to be fair I haven't heard anything about him supporting Trump anymore).

View on HN

The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.

This! I honestly can't understand how one can blame Thiel for killing free speech. He basically evened the chances in front of justice. If there's anyone to blame for killing free speech it's the legal system who decided against Gawker.

"What he basically did was say, "don't ever print anything negative about a billionaire because they can take down your entire business""

No, he didn't. Gawker died on its own merits; in an alternative world where Gawker continued to flaunt the law because someone couldn't afford to fund a lawsuit, I'm OK with this outcome. Not to mention, Gawker did themselves absolutely no favors, from ignoring a federal judge to flippantly answering questions under oath, they garnered no pity from me.

I agree, Gawker was awful and deserved to die for many reasons.

But it's important to remember that the judgement was only the death blow -- defending the lawsuit was what gave them a slow death. Even if Gawker was right and won, they still would have died.

> No, he didn't. Gawker died on its own merits

Just-world fallacy. If I had an axe to grind with you and had unlimited funds - how many of your negative interactions with (contractors|coworkers|neighbours|acquaintances) in the past couple of years could be escalated to financial ruin? If you survive the first suit, how many more could you stomach before declaring bankruptcy?

By accident or design, the fact that legal action is expensive acts as a brake on suits without much merit (to a degree).

He funded someone else's lawsuit, yes. But it's not as if Thiel bribed the judge and jury. The lawsuit won on its own legal merits. Gawker did something they had no right to do, which the law recognized.

Gawker lost against Hulk Hogan on hubbis alone.

Hogan got an injunction to take down the sex tape and Gawkers response was an article titled "A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't."

They sealed their own fates with their muckraking tabloidism.

[1] http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

Yes, it was a truly chilling effect on the free speech when a website was held responsible for distributing private sex videos to garner clicks.

If that suit didn't happen, would reddit been as fast to stop the "fappening" exchange on their website?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...

At least if you are a celebrity with deep pockets you have a good chance of getting your leaked photos wiped.

You're out of luck however if you are just an ordinary person, and partner uploaded your pictures to some "amateur" website as "revenge porn".

I hate Gawker too, but you need to see the bigger picture.

It was defending the suit, whether right or wrong, that killed them. The judgement was just the death blow.

Would you feel the same way if the suit had been against a more reputable organization like the New York Times?

Number 1, the New York Times wouldn't (I trust) have published the stuff that got Gawker in trouble.

Number 2, the New York Times would be much wiser in how they interacted with the courts than Gawker was.

Number 3, people do sue the New York Times. The New York Times pays the legal costs, and keeps publishing.

Do you really think that a billionaire can bankrupt the New York Times with a lawsuit? I'm pretty sure they can't...

EFF funds other people’s lawsuits too. Isn’t that the exact same thing you are complaining about?

I don't think that is right. They participate in other people's lawsuits as additional council. The don't just give money to other council.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com